The "Left"
Critics after the Fact

While the slaughter of Communists,
nationalists and progressives of all sorts has been going on in Indonesia, what
has been the reaction of the anti-imperialist forces in the rest of the world?
Has the response of fraternal parties and movements been by any standards
commensurate with the enormity of the crime committed against the Indonesian
people?

In the United States, where all the major tendencies in the international
working class movement are represented, the only demonstrations and rallies
organized to protest the massacres have been those carried out by Youth Against
War & Fascism (YAWF). Our organization demonstrated at the Indonesian
Consulate first to expose the mass killings and again to demand the release of
the political prisoners. In both these acts of protest, the role of U.S.
imperialism in the bloody affair was emphasized.

Again, YAWF was the only voice of protest -- if only from the visitors'
gallery -- when Indonesia was readmitted to the United Nations without debate.
What would have been a routine item on the agenda was turned into a moment of
intense struggle as guards rushed to eject demonstrators with accusing banners:
"U.S. Puppets Slaughter One Million Indonesians!" In all the Western
countries where parties do exist reflecting the different tendencies in the
communist movement, it has been impossible for this writer to learn of any
similar actions taken in solidarity with the Indonesian Communists, who have now
been under the gun for over four years.

There has however been some space devoted to the question of Indonesia in
the journals of quite a few of the parties in question. The monthlyPolitical
Affairs which is sympathetic to the positions taken by the U.S. Communist
Party ran a series of articles entitled "Lessons from the Setback in
Indonesia" in March-April-May of 1968. The series is introduced as a
document issued by a tendency calling itself "The Marxist-Leninist Group of
the Indonesian Communist Party."

The theses of this document and quite clearly those of the editors of
Political Affairs as well, are that the September 30th Movement was "of a
purely adventuristic nature," that it "failed to secure active support
by the Party and working people and, therefore, stood aloof from progressive
revolutionary doctrines" and that "a certain Party ... was responsible
for turning the Indonesian Revolution into a gaming table for its political
gambles."

REVISIONISTS STILL TALK OF PEACEFUL ROAD FOR INDONESIA

While criticizing the PKI for being both adventuristic and conciliatory and
asking "how it could have happened" that a small group of leaders "got
themselves involved in the September 30th Movement" when the Party was not
prepared for armed struggle, the document sums up the "path ahead"
without calling for the introduction of armed struggle against the fascist
regime. Rather, it identifies the "right path" as the program adopted
by the Fifth Congress of the PKI, which as elaborated in another section of this
same document predicted that "A people's democracy in Indonesia can be
attained by peaceful means."

This point is hammered home throughout the document, and the question of
the future political development of the PKI is tied to the "struggle for
peace and peaceful coexistence." The authors foresee mobilizing "the
broad popular masses to form a peaceful front against imperialism."

Given this general ideological outlook, it should not then be too puzzling
to note that nowhere in this quite lengthy document is there mention of the role
of U.S. imperialism in the massacres. In spite of the present state of terror
and military dictatorship in Indonesia and the war being fought just across the
South China Sea in Viet Nam, this tendency clings to a program of "peaceful
coexistence" and finds more evidence of Chinese responsibility for the
defeat than U.S.

Another article, with the same essential shortcomings, this one written by
a Soviet theorist named V. Viktorov, appeared December 1968 inInternational
Affairs, published in Moscow. Entitled "Indonesia's Hour of Trial,"
it contains many important facts and figures on Indonesia's political and
economic transformation since the coup. While reviewing the return of Dutch ,
published in Moscow. Entitled "Indonesia's Hour of Trial," it contains
many important facts and figures on Indonesia's political and economic
transformation since the coup. While reviewing the return of Dutch corporations,
Indonesia's reentry into the International Monetary Fund, and the rule of the "Tokyo
Club" of creditors who rescheduled Indonesia's debts in return for more
favorable investment conditions, the article only vaguely mentions other "imperialists"
who have recaptured Indonesia's mineral resources. The U.S., the largest
imperialist power to benefit economically from the coup, remains nameless.

PLP, CP IGNORE U.S. ROLE IN COUP

The quarterlyWorld Revolution, which is published by the U.S.
Progressive Labor Party, ran in its January-March 1969 issue two documents
issued by the Central Committee of the PKI. Both expound a new program adopted
late in 1967. They are a very definite departure from the program of the Fifth,
Sixth and Seventh Party Congresses, ratified in 1954 and then revised in 1959
and 1962. These two documents strongly criticize the earlier stands of the PKI
and solidarize the new PKI Central Committee with the Chinese Communist Party
and its international line.

An introduction to these two documents was prepared by the editors of World
Revolution. Their round-up on how the fascists were able to seize power
criticizes the Aidit leadership, just about all of whom are now dead, for
following a "Moscow line," stating that although the PKI began
opposing Soviet revisionism in 1962, it still maintained "a domestic
revisionist program." In the opinion of PLP, it was the policy currently
advocated by the "Moscow-liners ... that was responsible for the murder of
over 500,000 Indonesian communists and radicals by the Suharto-Nasution
fascists." Reliance upon Sukarno, a "nationalist image," and
wavering on whether or not to support the September 30th Movement led to the
decisive defeat for the party and the masses. But the Soviet Union, according to
this position, must be considered largely accountable because "Before,
during and after the mass slaughter of communists by Nasution-Suharto the
Soviets were the main source of supply for the fascist army. The Soviets even
today provide this army withall(our emphasis) its equipment
and spare parts, ammunition, fuel and instructors and advisors although this
army has no one to fight but communist revolutionaries."

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this "round-up" of
Indonesia's recent history is that it also nowhere mentions U.S. imperialism. In
fact, in claiming that the Soviet Union completely sustains the fascist military
machine, PL's analysis obliterates the role of U.S. military advisers, equipment
and training in the coup itself -- something that even bourgeois sources
acknowledge to have been the critical factor in the takeover.

The two Indonesian documents accompanying this introduction do not have the
same failing. Rather, the new program of the PKI emphasizes many times the
status of Indonesia today as a "new-type colony of U.S. imperialism."
It traces the replacement of Dutch capital by U.S. firms and points out how
Indonesia is strategically important to the U.S. for their general military
objectives in Southeast Asia.

NEITHER HAS MOBILIZED PROTEST

In both the positions of PL and the revisionist CP described here, the
overriding emphasis on the culpability of political opponents for the dreadful
defeat of the Indonesian Communists, to the point of almost totally ignoring the
role of the major imperialist power, does relieve the urgency to act in this
country in protest against the murders. Whether or not this is the underlying
cause, the fact is that the parties in the West that lay claim to the closest
fraternal ties to the PKI have done nothing to raise a storm of protest and
outrage at what has been one of the most monstrous crimes of modern times.
Whatever blame the Indonesian masses may finally attach to the policies of their
leaders, these Western critics of the PKI leadership, by not offering true
international solidarity through struggle, have done nothing to deserve respect
for their positions, be they right or wrong theoretically.

While not a major tendency in the world movement, the position of the
Socialist Workers Party should perhaps be mentioned here. It too has published a
critique of the PKI, purportedly written by a former member of the Indonesian
party. However, this criticism is nowhere supplemented by any attempt to rouse
support for the struggles of the Indonesian people against the fascist butchers,
nor by a condemnation of their own ruling class which through the CIA and other
agencies played the decisive role in the coup. The colossal and immensely tragic
defeat for 100 million people struggling against imperialist domination becomes
reduced in the pages of The Militant to a factional issue -- an opportunity to
say "I told you so" to opponent political tendencies.

Could those who offered all this criticism of the course of the PKI without
lifting a finger in the PKI's defense and without once even reproaching the CIA
or trying to arouse the U.S. public against the massacre, really have done any
better than the PKI? It is almost ludicrous even to ask the question.

A more pressing and apropos question is this: Can such parties, no matter
how well they phrase their theoretical positions or how many members or
subscriptions they have, succeed in the United States where the PKI failed in
Indonesia? Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary practice.
But without ordinary class struggle practice, much less revolutionary practice,
the most revolutionary theory is just a lot of words.

YAWF has not written any weighty critique of the Aidit leadership. We have
organized demonstrations and rallies protesting the massacres and have published
a number of documents and articles primarily focused, as is this pamphlet, on
the U.S. role in these events. Does this mean we have no opinion on the policies
followed by the PKI or on the position of Sukarno and other bourgeois
nationalist leaders? Does it mean that we feel the Chinese and Soviet parties
had no influence on the line of the Indonesian Communists?

No, this is not the case at all. Certainly, in a disaster the proportions
of this one, only fatalists will ignore what role subjective factors played in
the defeat. Imperialism is not all-powerful, as the heroic struggle of the
Vietnamese is confirming each day, and if a strong and seemingly dynamic
progressive movement can suddenly be almost wiped out, then the reasons for its
weakness must be found.